Effective January 1, 2018 Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. has merged into, and will now practice law as Houston Harbaugh, P.C. Visit Houston Harbaugh here and learn more about all the ways we can serve you.

Class Certification Granted in Dispute over Royalties under Oil and Gas Leases

On behalf of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. posted in Business Litigation on Wednesday, October 2, 2013.

On the recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge for the Pittsburgh Division, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has granted class certification in a dispute between lessors and a lessee over royalty payments made under oil and gas leases. In Pollock v. Energy Corp. of Am., No. 10-1553, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141139 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2013), the putative class representatives, all of whom had entered into oil and gas leases with the lessee defendant, essentially raised three allegations against the lessee defendant that were used to certify subclasses under Rule 23(c)(4).

First, they alleged that, in contravention of Pennsylvania law, the lessee defendant had improperly deducted post-production costs from their royalty payments after the lessee defendant sold the gas to a buyer. Second, they alleged that the defendant lessee had improperly deducted marketing fees from the royalties after the gas was sold, even though the gas was sold to a single buyer who also happened to be a marketing affiliate/subsidiary company of the lessee defendant. Third, they alleged that the lessee defendant had failed to pay royalties on gas used off the leased premises as plant fuel in violation of their leases. Based on these common issues affecting themselves and other lessors who had entered into oil and gas leases with the lessee defendant, the putative class representatives sought class certification to redress these alleged harms.

The lessee defendant opposed class certification. In addition to arguing that it had incurred the disputed post-production costs prior to selling the gas, the lessee defendant essentially objected to class certification on the basis that resolution of the aforementioned issues turned on individual leases, which were not all uniform.

As to the first two subclasses, the court agreed that class certification was proper. In the magistrate's view, resolution of the first two issues, respectively, was dependent on the common issue of when the lessee defendant sold the gas and its relationship with the buyer, not the terms of the individual leases. With respect to the third subclass, however, the court reached a different conclusion. Because the ability of each class member to demonstrate that the lessee defendant had failed to pay royalties would depend on how and where the gas was used, and because of differences in the leases as to the lessee defendant's ability to use the gas as plant fuel off the premises, the issue was not proper for class certification.

Finally, the court concluded its analysis by rejecting the application of the discovery rule to the class's claims. Specifically, the court rejected the putative class's argument that the damages period should date back to the first royalty payment made under each lease because such an individualized inquiry was inconsistent with class certification. Consequently, the court held that, in light of Pennsylvania's four-year statute of limitations applicable to breach of contract claims, members of the first and second subclasses could not recover damages for royalty fees paid more than four years before the action was filed.

Pursuant to court order dated September 30, 2013, the district court has formally adopted the magistrate's recommendations as outlined above.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's article "The New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016" was published in the 2016 Fall/Winter edition of USLAW Magazine.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath's ed a CLE on the New Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 for the Western Pennsylvania chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel

Firm shareholder Alan Miller was named as the 2017 Best Lawyer Environmental Litigator of the Year and also was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Insurance Coverage.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation; firm shareholder Anthony Picadio was named a 2016 Super Lawyer in Business Litigation; firm associate Brandon McCullough was named a 2016 Super Lawyer Rising Star in Insurance Coverage.

On May 25, 2016, Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski presented "Voir Dire and Jury Selection" with Honorable Ronald Folina, at the Crowne Plaza Pittsburgh, as part of the National Business Institute's Continuing Education Programs.

Firm shareholder Henry Sneath and firm associate led and presented at a 2-hour CLE on "Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA): The New Federal Private Cause of Action for Trade Secret Misappropriation."

Firm shareholder Kelly Williams spoke at the USLAW Business to Business Litigation Exchange in San Francisco on Prosecuting and Defending Business Defamation and Commercial Disparagement Claims by or Against Competitors Including Social Media Issues.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski spoke on "Wacky Pennsylvania Construction Laws" at the U.S. Law Network Spring Conference in Rancho Palos Verdes California, which took place on April 7-9, 2016.

Firm shareholder Jeff Ludwikowski was selected to serve a two year term as Education Coordinator for the Construction Law Section of the U.S. Law Network.

Firm shareholder Bridget Gillespie and firm associate Brandon McCullough served as Regional Editors and Co-Authors of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the DRI Duty to Defend Compendium which was published in February 2016.

Disclaimer

The information on this website is for educational and informative purposes. Neither it nor the website is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. It is not to be taken as legal advice on which you should rely, and is not a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state. If you require legal advice, we recommend that you contact a licensed attorney who can provide advice based on your specific factual circumstances, the jurisdiction you are in, and the appropriate law for your situation. Please do not send us confidential information unless we have specifically requested that you do so. To the extent that any prior firm results are discussed, there is no guarantee that such results will be obtained in the future. Finally, other than the PSMN® website, we have no control over the sites that we link to, so we make no representations about the content or quality of these external sites.

Office Location And Contact Information

Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C., is a Pittsburgh law firm that serves clients primarily in Pennsylvania, but also in other jurisdictions on a special admission basis.